In the Hands of the Interpreter

[jillio]

Cueing is funny in that regard. I have no problem with cued speech, personally. I think it benefits many of the kids who use it. I think more parents need to be aware of cueing, it is not that well-known, and some families might benefit greatly from being able to communicate easily with their deaf children. It's not for everybody, but it helps some people, and anything that helps can't be all bad.

However...I have noticed an extreme tendency for cueing advocates to be REALLY strong pushers for cueing. And like you noted, it's not just motivated by finding the best solution for deaf students...it's because she thinks cueing is the best method and wants to develop research to support that.

Again: cueing can be great. Cueing advocates, though, can be a little too high-pressure.

Agreed....just like the oral only advocates. I see a possible application of CS in teaching literacy, and that is what Dr. Cornett intended the system to do when he invented it. However, this push to use CS as a communication method, and to restrict deaf children to its use only, particularly in the very early years, is just as dangerous as any other oral method.

 

[jillio]

"In the Hands of the Transliterator" would have been a much better title. It would explain away the three billion uses of the word "hearing impaired" as well as the lack of mention of ASL.

LOL! I picked up on that one immedicately when reading the article, too. That turn of phrase is very telling, isn't it?

 

[jillio]

Etoile - All research is biased. Interpretor/transiltorator are used interchangably terms. Not something that I necessarily agreed with, but currently, it is what it is.

Simply because Dr. Krause appears to be focusing on SEE and CS does not change the fact that the intent is to provide empirical research and data. I imagine that she is looking at SEEand CS, because they are both systems to relay English, thus not including ASL.

Are you suggesting that she need to be an ASL interpretor for her research?

Interesting that you view this article as her attempting to find fault in an interpretor.

Interpreter/transliterator are not interchangable terms. An interpretor and a transliterator perform to different functions.

Her intent is quite obvious, given what was reported in the article, and what her CV revealed. And the empirical data that she is attempting to provide is in support of CS.

Since you are both members of the NCSA, perhaps you can answer whether the grant money for her research came from that organization.

 

[Interpretrator]

Interpretor/transiltorator are used interchangably terms.

Perhaps among the general public but I would expect a researcher to know that those terms have completely different definitions. An interpreter transmits between two different spoken or signed languages. A transliterator transmits between two forms of the same language. A translator transmits between written forms of languages.

Are you suggesting that she need to be an ASL interpretor for her research?

No, I am suggesting that these three sentences

Krause suggests that the results of this study could help parents when deciding which mode of communication they want their child to learn. If a child will attend a traditional school and use an interpreter, it is important to know if any modality is more effective in retaining accuracy and intelligibility at certain speeds. She says that, to date, she has not seen any compelling research that answers this question.

are extremely misleading if ASL is not considered a factor. First, the results of this study will only help parents decide which of the communication modes used in this study they want this child to learn. Secondly, again with the incorrect use of "interpreter." Thirdly, what research has she been reading and has it included ASL? Because "any modality" would imply just that, any communication modality and last I checked, ASL was still an option for deaf kids.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the purpose or results of the study; I'm saying that by omitting any mention of ASL -- even acknowledging that it was not a factor -- it implies that only the English codes studied are beneficial for parents to know about.

 

[loml]

Looking for background info......

Ah so she's a cuer? Cued speech did help me but I also recall that it had no meaning to some of my classmates in the oral program. The reason why it didn't help them is that they had limited language skills. I dunno why I was able to pick up English and why many of my classmates couldn't.

deafskeptic - You state cued speech helped you, in what regard? Reading, writing, speaking??? How old were you and your classmates at this time? Were they provided the opportunity to learn CS? Did you cued at home and at school? Did other members of your family cue? How old were you when you learned to cue?

There are many variables to developing language skills. We are all products of our enviroment.

 

[deafskeptic]

deafskeptic - You state cued speech helped you, in what regard? Reading, writing, speaking??? How old were you and your classmates at this time? Were they provided the opportunity to learn CS? Did you cued at home and at school? Did other members of your family cue? How old were you when you learned to cue?

There are many variables to developing language skills. We are all products of our enviroment.

It mainly helped me with a basic understanding of phonics and lipreading. It's my understanding that it was intended to take guess work out of lipreading.

Phonics has never been my forte btw and I still have some trouble with it. I don't recall it improving my writing as my first grade report indicated that I already had a very good under standing of English. We were all in second grade when we first learned cued speech. I don't recall ever using it before 2nd grade.

I was eight at the time. My mother was the only one who cued in my family besides me. We didn't cue much at home. Cueing lasted only six months in 2nd grade and by the time I was in 4th grade, I had stopped cuing at home.

 

[loml]

Perhaps among the general public but I would expect a researcher to know that those terms have completely different definitions. An interpreter transmits between two different spoken or signed languages. A transliterator transmits between two forms of the same language. A translator transmits between written forms of languages.

What you are saying may be factual for you geographics, but my experiences has not been as clearly defined. I have seen the terms interchanged, not necessarily something that I agree with, it is an ardurous task of re-educating.

No, I am suggesting that these three sentences are extremely misleading if ASL is not considered a factor. First, the results of this study will only help parents decide which of the communication modes used in this study they want this child to learn. Secondly, again with the incorrect use of "interpreter." Thirdly, what research has she been reading and has it included ASL? Because "any modality" would imply just that, any communication modality and last I checked, ASL was still an option for deaf kids.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the purpose or results of the study; I'm saying that by omitting any mention of ASL -- even acknowledging that it was not a factor -- it implies that only the English codes studied are beneficial for parents to know about.

ASL is mentioned, albeit briefly. If her intent is with regard to English mediums, then I myself do not find it misleading.

Of course we disect this brief article, but untimately we will look for that which it does or does not fulfill for each of us. This is apparent in our exchange.

 

[loml]

Interpreter/transliterator are not interchangable terms. An interpretor and a transliterator perform to different functions.

I am familiar with how the terms should be used. There is of course no guarantees that it is used in the capacity that it should be.

Her intent is quite obvious, given what was reported in the article, and what her CV revealed. And the empirical data that she is attempting to provide is in support of CS.

All the better then, as it appears that she is passionate regarding Cued Speech.

Since you are both members of the NCSA, perhaps you can answer whether the grant money for her research came from that organization.

I find these types of comments that you contiunually make, quite crass and unecessary. I suspect that you are getting some kind of "good feeling" from this negative approach. I cannot think of any other reason why you choose to portray yourself, in print, as this kind of person.

 

[jillio]

It mainly helped me with a basic understanding of phonics and lipreading. It's my understanding that it was intended to take guess work out of lipreading.

Phonics has never been my forte btw and I still have some trouble with it. I don't recall it improving my writing as my first grade report indicated that I already had a very good under standing of English. We were all in second grade when we first learned cued speech. I don't recall ever using it before 2nd grade.

Many hearing children are unable to completely grasp the concept of phonics. Especially in regard to decoding the English language, because it is not phonetically consistent. Phonetic approaches to literacy have been found to be most effective for natural auditory learners, and even many hearing children are visual or kinesthetic learners. I am not surprised when a deaf indiviudal finds it confusing, as well. As, as evidenced by your excellent use of the English langauge, difficulty in decoding written langauge phonetically is not a consistent predictor of literacy.

 

[jillio]

I am familiar with how the terms should be used. There is of course no guarantees that it is used in the capacity that it should be.



All the better then, as it appears that she is passionate regarding Cued Speech.



I find these types of comments that you contiunually make, quite crass and unecessary. I suspect that you are getting some kind of "good feeling" from this negative approach. I cannot think of any other reason why you choose to portray yourself, in print, as this kind of person.

I fail to see why you consider a question regarding grant funding for research crass. It is a relevent question, and quite innocent. Your reaction makes one think that perhaps there is something you would rather not reveal due to possible conflict of interest.

When one is doing research, one is required to operationally define all concepts being investigated. Therefore, use of the word interpreter, when one is really referrring to a translierator, is unnaceptable.

Her passion regarding CS should not enter into her her research. A researcher is, above all, supposed to approach their investigation without bias. If one is investigating communication in deaf individuals, then one must include all methods to remove that bias, whether they are passionate about a given approach or not. To omit ASL from the research is to attempt to skew results in favor of one's own philosophy.

 

[jillio]

What you are saying may be factual for you geographics, but my experiences has not been as clearly defined. I have seen the terms interchanged, not necessarily something that I agree with, it is an ardurous task of re-educating.

Then perhaps you should consult a dictionary. Definition is not dependent upon geography.



ASL is mentioned, albeit briefly. If her intent is with regard to English mediums, then I myself do not find it misleading.

It is not so much misleading, as it is incomplete.

Of course we disect this brief article, but untimately we will look for that which it does or does not fulfill for each of us. This is apparent in our exchange.

So you agree that this is not so much an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of classroom communication for deaf children, but simply an attempt to promote the use of CS.

 

[loml]

It mainly helped me with a basic understanding of phonics and lipreading. It's my understanding that it was intended to take guess work out of lipreading.

Phonics has never been my forte btw and I still have some trouble with it. I don't recall it improving my writing as my first grade report indicated that I already had a very good under standing of English. We were all in second grade when we first learned cued speech. I don't recall ever using it before 2nd grade.

I was eight at the time. My mother was the only one who cued in my family besides me. We didn't cue much at home. Cueing lasted only six months in 2nd grade and by the time I was in 4th grade, I had stopped cuing at home.

Deafskeptic - I am not familiar with your familial background or your hearing loss history. Would you please considering sharing with me how old you were when you were diagnosed with hearing loss and at what dB, etc? What communication, schooling choices have you experiences, chronologically? Has your mother ever discussed her decisions behind the choices that were made on your behalf?

 

[loml]

I fail to see why you consider a question regarding grant funding for research crass. It is a relevent question, and quite innocent. Your reaction makes one thing that perhaps there is something you would rather not reveal due to possible conflict of interest.[?QUOTE]

Unfortunate that you do not appear to posses the insight to view this from another persons perspective. Simply put and with no hidden agenda, although you seem to have a need to create/imagine these for me, your statement/not a question:

Since you are both members of the NCSA, perhaps you can answer whether the grant money for her research came from that organization.

is crass.

When one is doing research, one is required to operationally define all concepts being investigated. Therefore, use of the word interpreter, when one is really referrring to a translierator, is unnaceptable.

That may be but this is not an example of research.

Her passion regarding CS should not enter into her her research. A researcher is, above all, supposed to approach their investigation without bias. If one is investigating communication in deaf individuals, then one must include all methods to remove that bias, whether they are passionate about a given approach or not. To omit ASL from the research is to attempt to skew results in favor of one's own philosophy.

Again, this is not the research, but simply an article. People do do research on what they are passionate about. You are defining for Dr. Krause how she is approaching/researching this topic, again based on a short article and based on your own bias toward ASL. Are you suggesting that Dr. Krause is unaware of the standards involved for empircal research?

 

[loml]

So you agree that this is not so much an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of classroom communication for deaf children, but simply an attempt to promote the use of CS.

jillio - For you what is "this"?

 

[fredfam1]

agenda or not

I am so glad I have begun teaching CS to my kids if only
to get a better understanding of it.

Jillio, and Loml, I understand both of your perspectives.

Loml the fact remains that their have been abuses
associated with Deaf children being forced by some
instructers and parents coerced (it seems to me) in
the past and perhaps it is happening now, to learn
cued speech INSTEAD of ASL.

And I think Jillios intention may be to prevent
that from occuring again. (Crusaders are ready
to pop up every where for any purpose and one really must
remain ever vigilant.) But we need not throw out the
baby with the bath water.

That having been said, I think CS is a marvelous
tool and I think its going to be a very effective
tool for teaching phonics to hearing children and
would work well for THIS purpose for Deaf children
as well. Movement is all ways a good thing while
learning and that is one reason I like this method.

I think some people may be using a shoe for a hammer
by trying to promote CS only, (Not You Loml, I understand
your perspective) and Jillio I really think CS would
be an effective tool for all teachers to use when teaching
phonics and reading to all children but especially the Deaf.

take a look at PJ trying to cue Merry Christmas

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

 

[deafskeptic]

Deafskeptic - I am not familiar with your familial background or your hearing loss history. Would you please considering sharing with me how old you were when you were diagnosed with hearing loss and at what dB, etc? What communication, schooling choices have you experiences, chronologically? Has your mother ever discussed her decisions behind the choices that were made on your behalf?

Certainly. I was born with a servre to profound deafness. My loss was around 70 to 100 dbs. It was mostly in the profound range. There is no history of deafness in my family; my deafness is due to the Rubella virus that I contracted before I was born. My mother says I had the second worst hearing loss in my class. In recent years it has been around 85 to 115 range. Most of my loss was in the 115 range. I think I may have had a sudden hearing loss at 19 as I started to have problems with recruiment around that time. I wish I had taken an audiogram so I'd know for sure.

I was raised orally till I was 13 years old when I first learned sign from a friend. My parents have told me that the experts told them not to let me use sign as it was considered a barrier to speech. I was enrolled in a self contained oral program from the time I was 18 months old to 3rd grade and then mainstreamed in public school in the 4th grade to 6 grade. The oral program had no permant building so we'd go to a different school every other year. My mainstream experience was a nightmare as I had no terps or notetakers in those days. Then I got sent to VSDB in Staunton and then transferred to MSSD. I'm a grad of MSSD. I think I've gone to something like 8 to 10 different schools by the time I was 18.

 

[jillio]

I fail to see why you consider a question regarding grant funding for research crass. It is a relevent question, and quite innocent. Your reaction makes one thing that perhaps there is something you would rather not reveal due to possible conflict of interest.[?QUOTE]

Unfortunate that you do not appear to posses the insight to view this from another persons perspective. Simply put and with no hidden agenda, although you seem to have a need to create/imagine these for me, your statement/not a question: is crass.

There is nothing crass about questioning from where funding for a particular research project is coming from. And it is a statement requesting information in order to answer than question. Why so defensive about answering whether or not you know if the funding for this research project is coming from NCSA. Your reluctance to answer such questions is what creates the atmosphere of skepticisim.

That may be but this is not an example of research.
This is an article describing intended research. It was written and contained in a publication regarding research being conducted at a university. Therefore, proper terminology shoudl be employed. It can be safely assumed that the author of the article received the information regrading the research project from either the researcher, or the researcher's assistants. Therefore, correct terminology should be used.



Again, this is not the research, but simply an article. People do do research on what they are passionate about. You are defining for Dr. Krause how she is approaching/researching this topic, again based on a short article and based on your own bias toward ASL. Are you suggesting that Dr. Krause is unaware of the standards involved for empircal research?

And it is an article reporting on intended research. Yes, people do research what they are passionate about. But they also include those variables and controls that, omitted, have the propensity to skew data collected. In this case, that would be ASL. I never suggested anything of the kind. What I have stated is that this is not a complete study without the inclusion of ASL.

 

[jillio]

I am so glad I have begun teaching CS to my kids if only
to get a better understanding of it.

Jillio, and Loml, I understand both of your perspectives.

Loml the fact remains that their have been abuses
associated with Deaf children being forced by some
instructers and parents coerced (it seems to me) in
the past and perhaps it is happening now, to learn
cued speech INSTEAD of ASL.

And I think Jillios intention may be to prevent
that from occuring again. (Crusaders are ready
to pop up every where for any purpose and one really must
remain ever vigilant.) But we need not throw out the
baby with the bath water.

That having been said, I think CS is a marvelous
tool and I think its going to be a very effective
tool for teaching phonics to hearing children and
would work well for THIS purpose for Deaf children
as well. Movement is all ways a good thing while
learning and that is one reason I like this method.

I think some people may be using a shoe for a hammer
by trying to promote CS only, (Not You Loml, I understand
your perspective) and Jillio I really think CS would
be an effective tool for all teachers to use when teaching
phonics and reading to all children but especially the Deaf.

take a look at PJ trying to cue Merry Christmas

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

I agree that it very well could be a useful tool to teach phonetic decoding and assist in literacy. However, it is being portrayed in this particular research, not as a teaching tool, but as a communication method. So you are correct in your conclusions regarding my problems with such research. If the intent is to make parents aware of all methods, and to investigate the effectiveness of each in order to better inform parents regarding those methods, then all methods must be included. If one is concerned about the number of comprehension errors involved in transliteration/interpretation, then one must look at the errors from the perspective of all situations.

I have stated numerous times that CS could very well be a useful teaching tool. I do not discount it when used for that purpose at all. I discount its promotion as a communciation mode, and especially when advocated as the primary communication mode.

The deaf student population is not homogeneous. Just as there are hearining children who do not do well with a phonetic approach to reading skills, there are those deaf students who will not do well with a phonetic approach. Therefore, it is necessary to keep CS in mind as a tool, not as an overall answer to literacy problems.

And a very Merry Christmas to your P.J. as well.

 

[deafskeptic]

It mainly helped me with a basic understanding of phonics and lipreading. It's my understanding that it was intended to take guess work out of lipreading.

Phonics has never been my forte btw and I still have some trouble with it. I don't recall it improving my writing as my first grade report indicated that I already had a very good under standing of English. We were all in second grade when we first learned cued speech. I don't recall ever using it before 2nd grade.

Many hearing children are unable to completely grasp the concept of phonics. Especially in regard to decoding the English language, because it is not phonetically consistent. Phonetic approaches to literacy have been found to be most effective for natural auditory learners, and even many hearing children are visual or kinesthetic learners. I am not surprised when a deaf indiviudal finds it confusing, as well. As, as evidenced by your excellent use of the English langauge, difficulty in decoding written langauge phonetically is not a consistent predictor of literacy.

I'm a very visual learner and I've always thought that even if I were hearing, I'd be a visual person. Spoken words will have little meaning to me unless I have a visual symbol for it even though I can hear them quite clearly. A recent example is the time I called my big sister on the phone and she told me what town my niece is going to. I have no idea what town she's in even though I know it's near the beach and that the community college she's going to near is it. I must see the name of the town for the name to register.

Heh English Phonics.. I believe Bernard Shaw is famous for complaining about it.

 

[loml]

I am so glad I have begun teaching CS to my kids if only
to get a better understanding of it.

Jillio, and Loml, I understand both of your perspectives.

Loml the fact remains that their have been abuses
associated with Deaf children being forced by some
instructers and parents coerced (it seems to me) in
the past and perhaps it is happening now, to learn
cued speech INSTEAD of ASL.

And I think Jillios intention may be to prevent
that from occuring again. (Crusaders are ready
to pop up every where for any purpose and one really must
remain ever vigilant.) But we need not throw out the
baby with the bath water.

That having been said, I think CS is a marvelous
tool and I think its going to be a very effective
tool for teaching phonics to hearing children and
would work well for THIS purpose for Deaf children
as well. Movement is all ways a good thing while
learning and that is one reason I like this method.

I think some people may be using a shoe for a hammer
by trying to promote CS only, (Not You Loml, I understand
your perspective) and Jillio I really think CS would
be an effective tool for all teachers to use when teaching
phonics and reading to all children but especially the Deaf.

take a look at PJ trying to cue Merry Christmas

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

fredfam1 - I appreciate you sharing your perspective. I must reiterate, that my platofrm has been consistent with Cued Speech and ASL working "hand in hand " with each other. If individuals choose "to learn cued speech INSTEAD of ASL", which I have yet to meet a cuer who doesn't know ASL or isn't the process of learning ASL, then that would be their choice, as would learning ASL and not Cued Speech.

I am looking forward to seeing PJ!